IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI JANE DOE, : Case No. 1:25-cv-149 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland VS. ELANA IATAROLA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 6)

This action is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Doc. 4) of United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman, to whom this

case is referred pursuant to

(b). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that the Court dismiss the action. Plaintiff filed an Objection (Doc. 9). Defendants provided no response. The Court may “sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn,

(6th Cir. 1999). Moreover, a plaintiff will not be given the opportunity to amend their pleadings to avoid a sua sponte dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint because its allegations are implausible and incomprehensible. (Report, Doc. 6, Pg. ID 54.) Plaintiff objects to the Report arguing that implausibility is an insufficient basis to dismiss a claim.

(Objection, Doc. 9, Pg. ID 61-62.) The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections do not present any new arguments that were not otherwise set forth in her Complaint. The allegations within the Complaint were properly addressed and rejected by Magistrate Judge Bowman. Furthermore, Plaintiffs attempt to rationalize her fantastical allegations by referring to scientific discoveries is not persuasive. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (Souter, J. dissenting). Plaintiff's objections are also not sufficient to preserve any issues for review, as rehashing the same arguments made previously defeats the purpose and efficiency of the Federal Magistrate’s Act,

. See Gallant v. Erdos, No. 1:19-CV-466,

, at *20-21 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2021) (denying the plaintiff's objection that the Magistrate Judge must have erred because the plaintiff's allegations do in fact state a claim). Plaintiff otherwise fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error by Magistrate Judge Bowman in her Report. As required by

(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 6) in its entirety. The Court orders the following: 1. Plaintiff's Claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 2. The Court CERTIFIES that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 3. This case shall be TERMINATED on the Court's docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHI WA By: : MATTHEW W. McFARLAND